Merlyn_LeRoy

>It is not true that a cub pack chartered by a public school cannot exclude atheists {although it is true that the public school can't discriminate on the basis of religion, as you said in your first post}.

Sorry, now you aren't even being consistent. if it's illegal for a public school to exclude atheists, running a cub scout pack doesn't make it legal somehow.

>When any institution charters a pack, they must agree to the declaration of religious principle. If they choose not to expend any resources defending that broad and [almost] encompassing statement, they should not charter a unit.

Sorry, this doesn't make it legal, it makes it an illegal and unenforcable agreement.

>As of our discussion, however, while it is not legal to discriminate in the classroom, it is legal to discriminate in the pack, after school.

Not by the public school, it isn't. It's still public money being spent, and it's still a public school running a youth group. It can't practice religious discrimination, period.

Using your logic, it would be legal for a public school to run a "whites only" youth group.

>Does it sound possible? Yes, and even probable - it's what I predicted: the little atheist kid lied [in this case, as you say, by ommission].

Nope; read it again. A scout troop chartered by a public school can't exclude atheists, and (in this case), the kid thought that the 'god' part was optional, just as it's optional in the pledge of allegiance.

>As for the Council, what is your question? What do you mean by "what about ...?"

Don't you consider it dishonest for a BSA council to charter a cub scout troop to a public school? The council knows that public schools can't practice religious discrimination, yet running a cub scout unit requires such discrimination.

>...If an institution has a clear requirement to affirm their stated declaration of religious priciples, it would seem contradictory to those priciples if said institution were to tempt someone to lie - wittingly or no. Furthermore, any atheist kid that lies in order to join said institution, does so wittingly.

Let's say a kid wants to join a cub scout unit chartered by his public school; he knows that his public school can't discriminate on the basis of religion, so he assumes the 'god' part is optional. When he makes the promise to join (along with 5 other kids), he omits the god part, and nobody notices. Sound possible?

And what would you say about the honesty of a scout council that charters scout units to public schools? The scout council knows that public schools can't practice religious discrimination.

llwyn wrote:

>...and an atheist, in my experience, will wittingly say whatever it takes to achieve their desired outcome.

Let's see how that looks with some slight changes:

>...and a Jew, in my experience, will wittingly say whatever it takes to achieve their desired outcome.

>...and a Catholic, in my experience, will wittingly say whatever it takes to achieve their desired outcome.

Doesn't look any better to me; looks like you're just defaming atheists.

Merlyn LeRoy

However, I do contend this: BSA founders championed/endorsed Judeo-Christian values.

Ernest Seton, the first chief scout of the BSA and writer of the first BSA handbook, didn't. Judging by his autobiography and his other writings and public statements, I doubt he would be allowed to join to BSA today. He was quite skeptical about gods.

>First you are jumping to the conclusion, that Pascal and I are talking about one God in particular.

No, I'm just pointing out to you that you are ASSUMING that believing in a god is always a "win" and not believing is never a "win"; you can't assume this, and you don't know this.

>It is this same Creator that in most religions have promised good things to those who believe.

How Christo-centric of you; many gods don't care what you believe, they care what you DO. And some gods don't like idolatry, such as worshipping a human as a god.

Again, you are assuming you know what god(s) like and don't like, but you have nothing to back up your assumptions. I can assume very different possibilities.

>Second in your response you mention all the Evil that has been done in the name of Religion. I will grant you that, but you are forgetting that comes from our human interpretation of religion documents.

Not really relevant; I was only pointing out that the part of your diagram that says "does not matter" (if you believe or don't believe, if no gods exist) is wrong. Belief in god(s) can be detrimental, so counting belief as "does not matter" can't be assumed.

Pascal's wager is utterly worthless.

>Merlyn_LeRoy, I point you to Pascal final conclusion that the only way he could lose is if there was a God and he did not believe.

And his conclusion was wrong, for a number of reasons. For example, he is assuming that believing in a god produces good results after death, when I've already pointed out that some gods treat worshippers of rival gods more harshly than nonbelievers - if you pick the wrong god out of the thousands that people follow, you might be worse off than an atheist. There's no reason to assume that belief in a god results in a better afterlife compared to nonbelief, whether gods exist or not. Of course, you can assume this is true, but then you're just assuming your conclusion.

He's also assuming that belief in a god has no detrimental effects if gods don't exist; this isn't true, either.

Theists can be convinced to go on suicide missions if they think they'll get rewarded in an afterlife for it, like the 9/11 terrorists. If gods don't exist, the terrorists cut their own lives short on a false promise.

Theists sometimes refuse medical treatment for religious reasons, such as Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood tranfusions; if gods don't exist, doing this simply reduces your chance of survival.

In Judaism, worshipping something that isn't god as if it were god is idolatry; if the Jews are right, Jesus isn't god. Worshipping him as god is idolatry.

And your first mention of pascal's wager included the usual claim that, if you're wrong, you're no worse off. That's wrong; there are gods that punish people who worship the "wrong" gods more than they punish atheists; if you're wrong in this case, you're worse off than an atheist. And, as I pointed out before, I'm free to posit a god that prefers atheists; if such a god exists, it's best to be an atheist.

Sorry, like I just pointed out, pascal's wager does make unwarranted assumptions, and it's nonsense. If the Jews are right, it's better to be an atheist than a Christian, since Christians are engaged in idolatry. Whoops, pascal's wager doesn't work in that case.

>As for Christianity, I refer you to Pascal's wager:

Pascal's wager is nonsense, as it assumes to know a particular god exists and what it wants.

If the Jews are right, Christians are in violation of the 7 laws given to Noah, because worshipping Jesus as a god would constitute idolatry. Jews don't consider atheists to be practicing idolatry, so in this case, atheists do better than Christians.

Of course, since there's no restriction on what kind of god(s) could exist, it's easy to posit one that e.g. only likes atheists.

Here's the supreme court's interpretation, from EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947), which also cites some of REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

>>They're defending free speech, they aren't advocating anything about age of consent laws.

>Of course it does, its like defending those who advocate the right to scream fire in the theater or to demonstrate in a public forum to say, kill the Jews. Youre defending the right to coerce illegal activity.

So you also think that the ACLU agrees with the Nazis and the KKK, since they've also defended their speech rights?

Sorry, the ACLU link I gave you and quoted states quite clearly that they are NOT advocating NAMBLA's position, only defending their free speech rights to advocate such a position.

>>And no, gay marriage doesn't affect other marriages; some churches have performed gay marriages for years.

>I dont see the connection, how does one affect the other?

Um, I thought YOU were claiming that same-sex marriages somehow affected other marriages. They already exist, and they don't seem to be affecting other marriages.

>>Please also state a case of age of consent laws being done away with by the ACLU.

>Umm. That would be in their defense of NAMBLA! What do you think?

I think they're defending NAMBLA's right of free speech to advocate that age of consent laws should be done away with, which is entirely different from the ACLU itself advocating that age of consent laws be done away with.

They're defending free speech, they aren't advocating anything about age of consent laws.

And no, gay marriage doesn't affect other marriages; some churches have performed gay marriages for years.

What do you find wrong with the ACLU's position on it?

http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n083100a.html

..."In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children."

"What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not."

I thought you started this thread saying you were in favor of freedom of speech; I guess you really meant religious speech backed by the government, and not speech by a private organization you personally find offensive.

...

"And Merlyn, just like allowing the government to penalize the Boy Scouts of America destroys any meaning of the right of association contained in the first. Oh, where is that ACLU now?"

Could you give some specific examples of how the government is "penalizing" the BSA?

...

"As the story also mentions, his [North's] conviction was overturned because Congress foolishly (the article doesn't say foolishly, I do) gave him immunity in order to testify at the hearings, when in fact they should have let him take the Fifth if he wanted and let the prosecutors prosecute him."

And who fought to have North's conviction overturned?

The ACLU. Not because they liked his politics or the way he broke the laws, but because prosecuting someone using statements they are compelled to make when given immunity destroys any meaning of the fifth amendment.

Just as allowing local governments to put up just the religious tenets they happen to like destroys any meaning of the first.

Well, I'll just have to point out that the courts don't agree with your arguments; not posting your religious tenets on government property doesn't infringe on your first amendement rights, because it isn't a public forum. You're free to post them on your own property, or carry a sign all day if you like.

And you still haven't reconciled the first commandment with the first amendment; the government has no business telling its citizens what gods to follow.

...

"Ill concede a few of these but it still isnt called the five commandments."

Which is exactly why the TEN commandments don't deserve to be posted by the government; many of them directly contradict the constitution.

And no, legislators do NOT have the authority to promote their constituents' religious views. Do you think it would be legal for a city hall to have a permanent sign saying "don't be a polytheist"? That isn't promoting a religion, either, so by your reasoning it'd be legal. Same with "don't be a Jew", or the more sinister implication of "don't be a Jew in THIS town".

...

"Theres precedent that there is, Tiernans counter-monument in Colorado. What was the result of that action?"

As far as I know, it's still in litigation; I think your example only helps my position, since atheists have to file lawsuits to get their point of view displayed in the same manner as religious points of view. If it was a real public forum, anyone could put up their views WITHOUT having to sue for the right to be heard on the same basis as anyone else.

...

"The state does not endorse a religion when it enacts neutral policies that happen to benefit a religion, the neutrality lies in the Ten Commandments history in establishing our law."

This is obviously a false reason, as it's always the ten commandments that gets pushed, instead of English common law or the Magna Carta or something like that. Plus, who's version do you use? Jews, Protestants, and Catholics all number & phrase them differently.

...

"The test of an endorsement of religion is determined by looking at the act through the eyes of a reasonable person, if the Ten Commandments were used for the basis of our law how would you find this as an endorsement?"

Because it isn't true.

"thou shalt have no other gods before me" directly contradicts the first amendment; this has nothing to do with US law.

"thou shalt not make any graven image, etc" also directly contradicts the first amendment, as people are free to make and worship graven images in the US.

"thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain" also directly contradicts the first amendment.

The bit about remembering the sabbath is ignored in the US, as the few blue laws that still outlaw some acts generally prohibit them on Sunday, while the sabbath is from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.

Honoring your mother & father isn't enforced by law in the US.

Coveting is perfectly legal in the US, and actually encouraged by capitalism.

The ones that are left aren't even close to being unique to christianity - don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, and don't commit adultery. May as well go back to Hamurabi for those.

I think it's pretty clear that people who support government endorsement of the ten commandments are doing to because they want the government to push their religion. If you want the ten commandments on public display, there's no shortage of private property where dozens of such monuments could be erected by the owners, such as churches or the lawns of private homes.

But ten commandments pushers don't want this; they want the government to be seen promoting *their* religious views. They want the government to tell all its citizens to have "no other gods" except Jehovah. And they don't want a public forum where other people can put up contradictory messages, such as "gods are myths".

I don't; I care about atheists' rights.

Now, instead of making dumb references to my nickname (and I strongly suspect that *your* real name isn't "OldGreyEagle", either), did you have anything constructive to add?

...

"Its a sad day for America, our right to freedom of speech has just been ignored by our SCOTUS."

...

"Public property use cannot prohibit free speech, period."

The case wasn't about a public forum where anyone could put up signs; if it was, atheists would be able to erect a sign that says "gods are myths".

This was about the government deciding to put up a sign that starts with "thou shalt have no other gods before me". The government has no business telling its citizens which gods to believe in, if any.

Given your attitude, the local government would have to power to promote whatever religions they felt like promoting, which is why ACLU lawsuits like this are needed in the first place.

Not that this topic has much of ANYTHING to do with scouting issues.

Religious discrimination and first amendment issues aren't a "gray area"; if the government wants to support a youth program, there are plenty of nondiscriminatory ones to support instead, like 4-H, which is part of the Dept. of Agriculture.

...

"You never commented on my last post. I was wondering what your thoughts were on this."

OK...

...

"Isn't the U.S.Congress the charter organization for the BSA on a national level?"

Here you're equivocating on the word "charter"; the US charter does not mean the same thing as a BSA "charter partner". If it did, the US would own all the BSA's assets and choose its leaders, since a BSA charter partner owns all the assets of a troop/pack and chooses its leaders.

...

"And isn't the current president the national charter organization rep. or the national exec. of BSA"

The president can be a member of the KKK if he wants to be; members of congress have been.

...

"I was pointing out that the ACLU, which automatically reacts to certain types of "discrimination" (there, used them again), looks the other way when its favored subjects come up."

And what DID the ACLU say when you asked about the situation? Oh, that's right, you never talked to them, so I don't see how you can honestly draw ANY conclusions about what they think about the situation, or even if they are aware of it.

...

"What religion does the BSA discriminate against?"

I didn't say the BSA discriminates against a religion, I said the BSA practices religious discrimination. "Religious discrimination" means more than you think; excluding atheists is "religious discrimination", requiring a belief in a god is "religious discrimination" (and yes, requiring atheism is also "religious discrimination")